|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Aug 4, 2008 5:22:22 GMT
The full facts havent come out, Which is exactly the problem - there may well be more to it than what had been publicised. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2008 10:04:13 GMT
i don't know the full story here but presumably a collegue was defending himself from an attack, the police saw nothing wrong in it and did not arrest him, our collegue is also stated to have been trying to withdraw into a place of safety so why did LU sack him? Probably because he didn't try to upload the companies policy of mollycoddling every person that comes through the entrance.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnb on Aug 5, 2008 13:48:14 GMT
i don't know the full story here but presumably a collegue was defending himself from an attack, the police saw nothing wrong in it and did not arrest him, our collegue is also stated to have been trying to withdraw into a place of safety so why did LU sack him? As has been said many times, we don't have the full facts here. The fact that the police don't bring charges in a case does not mean that a crime has not taken place - it merely means that they do not think that a crime has taken place for which they believe there is a reasonable chance of a conviction (say, one where the alleged victim was drunk, had been abusive to other people elsewhere, and is unlikely to come forward in case he's also charged.) The facts that have been reported are consistent with someone innocent being victimised by management. They're also consistent with someone who used grossly excessive force being backed up by workmates, but then caught out when management review the CCTV footage. It'll be interesting to see which is the case when this reaches the industrial tribunal stage... |
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Aug 5, 2008 15:54:27 GMT
[/quote]It'll be interesting to see which is the case when this reaches the industrial tribunal stage[/quote]
I'm sure the moderators don't want this site to descend into a 'bash LU/bash TU' cat-fight but, as an observation, whatever happens at an IT in these circumstances, the person concerned never gets their job back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on Aug 5, 2008 23:21:44 GMT
I can't believe RCI staff covered. I mean lets face it, if LUL ever wanted to get rid of a load of RCI's, and they threatened strike action it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. It would be the RCI's who needed the station staff, and drivers to back them up ! They are one of few grades the company (from operation side) could survive and run perfectly without. So by scabbing they are certainly doing themselves no favours ! Interesting reading.  www.rmtplatform.org.uk/node/245 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2008 13:45:08 GMT
I can't believe RCI staff covered. I mean lets face it, if LUL ever wanted to get rid of a load of RCI's, and they threatened strike action it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. It would be the RCI's who needed the station staff, and drivers to back them up ! They are one of few grades the company (from operation side) could survive and run perfectly without. So by scabbing they are certainly doing themselves no favours ! Interesting reading. www.rmtplatform.org.uk/node/245Janines work from the looks of it. Interesting or not i cannot bring myself round to read it |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2008 13:49:57 GMT
Some of you are also reminded to read the LUL media policy. That said, there are important issues raised here, and it's possible (assuming people keep within journalistic guidelines) that it's a story alterantive media sites like Wikinews could cover. **admin comment** If the forum staff felt there was an issue, we would have pulled the thread - whilst this thread my be treading a thin line, freedom of speech is allowed here! One other thing though folks - the use of the word "scab".......when used in the context of industrial relations, it's often intended to intimidate. I'm not saying that was the intention on this occasion, but please do think before hitting the post button Having had this argument before I think its fair game to use the word scab. If people are not good enough to not cross a picketline why think of their feelings when refering to them as a scab. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Aug 6, 2008 16:08:26 GMT
People have a right to strike - but others surely have a right not to if they do not agree with it?
If LU were to start referring to strikers with such terms there'd be an outcry I'm sure - so why different the other way?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2008 19:34:17 GMT
The problem is that people going on strike do it because they feel strongly about an issue. When they see colleagues undermining their action by crossing a picket line then emotions will always run high.
I have never crossed a picket line and cannot imagine a situation where I ever would. Even if I didn't agree with the strike I wouldn't have it in me to do it to my fellow-workers.
If someone crossed a picket line I was standing on then I would feel affonted and insulted by their actions. In my personal opinion, breaking a strike is more insulting to those on strike than any name-calling could ever be.
Like I said, just my personal opinion and not intended as a dig at anyone.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,765
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 6, 2008 21:00:16 GMT
The problem is that not everybody is a member of the union that is striking, and regardless of whether they agree with the reason for the strike they do not have (AIUI) the right to join in the strike - indeed in certain circumstances it might leave them open to disciplinary action.
When I worked for Defra, there were two unions the PCS and Prospect, I was not a member of either (I was not eligible to join PCS and Prospect were next to useless). On several occasions, the PCS union was on strike but Prospect was not. I agreed with what the PCS union were striking over, but even if I had been a member of Prospect, if I did not cross the picket line it would have been classed as an unauthorised absence on my part.
Do not assume that just because someone crosses a picket line, do not assume that they are always doing so voluntarily.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Aug 6, 2008 21:44:08 GMT
Quite true. I recall the recent UNISON strike action in local government. People who were not UNISON members couldn't refuse to cross a picket line - it would be a disciplinary if they did, since they were taking secondary industrial action - which is unlawful.
|
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Aug 6, 2008 22:36:56 GMT
The position of the RCI's may depend on what they were asked to do... If they were sent to 'cover striking CSA's' they may find themselves in a stronger position to refuse to do so than if they were sent to 'monitor the gateline in a revenue operation'.
I think it is unfair to expect non-striking staff to cover those who are taking action (whether it be different union membership or staff in a grade not covered by the strike). But can totally see why management would do it.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Aug 7, 2008 1:02:16 GMT
Having had this argument before I think its fair game to use the word scab. If people are not good enough to not cross a picketline why think of their feelings when refering to them as a scab. "having had this argument before" - who with? You certainly haven't had it with me or this forum. See below for my further thoughts on the point. The last few posts cover the rest very well - never assume anyone has 'crossed a picket line' to spite a striker. Making assumptions never got anyone anywhere. The problem is that people going on strike do it because they feel strongly about an issue. When they see colleagues undermining their action by crossing a picket line then emotions will always run high. Again, I think there's been a fair point put across with regard to the perceived 'undermining' defence. I have never crossed a picket line and cannot imagine a situation where I ever would. Even if I didn't agree with the strike I wouldn't have it in me to do it to my fellow-workers. If someone crossed a picket line I was standing on then I would feel affonted and insulted by their actions. In my personal opinion, breaking a strike is more insulting to those on strike than any name-calling could ever be. Like I said, just my personal opinion and not intended as a dig at anyone. I have no wish to get personal either (let's hope this thread stays on the side of healthy discussion) - I've only quoted you because this is the defence I hear most often when 'unionised' people start talking about the rights & wrongs of strikes. In my experience, people who use the word "scab" are not simply "name calling", they are using it as a tool to bully, intimidate and force their strong union views upon another. In my book, it amounts to the same as forcing strong political or religious views on another - that's why I don't like it and why I requested it's use was considered carefully. There will always be those that disagree with my view, and I accept that - but if you are gonna disagree, convince me that the use of the word 'scab' is not intended to bully, intimidate or force one's strong views on another........ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2008 7:32:55 GMT
Having had this argument before I think its fair game to use the word scab. If people are not good enough to not cross a picketline why think of their feelings when refering to them as a scab. "having had this argument before" - who with? You certainly haven't had it with me or this forum. See below for my further thoughts on the point. The last few posts cover the rest very well - never assume anyone has 'crossed a picket line' to spite a striker. Making assumptions never got anyone anywhere. Again, I think there's been a fair point put across with regard to the perceived 'undermining' defence. I have never crossed a picket line and cannot imagine a situation where I ever would. Even if I didn't agree with the strike I wouldn't have it in me to do it to my fellow-workers. If someone crossed a picket line I was standing on then I would feel affonted and insulted by their actions. In my personal opinion, breaking a strike is more insulting to those on strike than any name-calling could ever be. Like I said, just my personal opinion and not intended as a dig at anyone. I have no wish to get personal either (let's hope this thread stays on the side of healthy discussion) - I've only quoted you because this is the defence I hear most often when 'unionised' people start talking about the rights & wrongs of strikes. In my experience, people who use the word "scab" are not simply "name calling", they are using it as a tool to bully, intimidate and force their strong union views upon another. In my book, it amounts to the same as forcing strong political or religious views on another - that's why I don't like it and why I requested it's use was considered carefully. There will always be those that disagree with my view, and I accept that - but if you are gonna disagree, convince me that the use of the word 'scab' is not intended to bully, intimidate or force one's strong views on another........ Personally I think the problem is that someone feels strongly enough to protest about whatever the issue is, wants to put it forward through the various motions, votes, ballotes etc. They opt to loose a days pay to show their feelings. someone who (normally!) isnt that fussed either way but would prefer not to loose money crosses a picket line they are indifferent about and nothing more comes of it. To me that is the actions of a scab, I know there are certain aspects like mentioned earlier when other unions are on strike and unfortunatly there are sometimes no other ways around this and in which case the word is a tad on the harsh side. But when it comes down to selfishness, greed or laziness I have little or no sympathy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2008 10:17:34 GMT
Interesting read and a thread I've just found after my two weeks in the sun.
Firstly as the facts have been presented, the case raises a serious concern to all front line staff. However as has been mentioned the full facts aren't known, to me at least, so it would be improper to comment.
However to follow on from previous posts. Colin mentions the LEGAL minimum cover to be 2 staff on station. This is a little of a moot point. Under current fire legislations, a fire risk assessment must be undertaken. This assessment would use the stations congestion and safety plan. This plan dictates minimum staffing levels for certain times of the day and certain days of the week.
A manager who decides to open a station with less staff than the congestion plan would need to undertake a full risk assessment to undertake the risk of opening the station with less staff. Given that under current rules this requires union agreement. So the union would go into dispute for refusing to following approved rules and as such the dispute could escalate.
The question of RCI coverage and admin staff. While I personally agree with some of the comments made, those staff would find themselves in a difficult position. Regardless of their union membership they were not in dispute and as a result if they refused to carry out duties they are licensed to undertake they risk being disciplined. Current legislation gives them no safeguards for refusing to cross the picket line.
Additionally we mustn't forget that the newly formed special requirements team will render any local station strike action totally unworkable as LU will have access to some 200 staff who will be able to cover an "event" at the affected stations.
Ultimately strength is in solidarity. Station staff can be replaced at a blink of an eye and as such have little or no strength within the industry. The solidarity comes from the harder to replace train operator grade who have the power to cause longer and more wide spread disruption. The question being how many drivers are prepared to lose pay for a dispute that "doesn't affect them"?
Without being pessimistic, the money earned by many LU staff isn't repeated in the private sector (for the role undertaken) and makes many staff middle class earners with mortgages, second homes etc. (A far cry from the union led days of the 70's).
How long would your mortgage company/ landlord go before they chucked you out of your home for not paying your mortgage/ rent? And that is one of my personal fears, there is no strong desire for long term strike action so ulitmately one day a politician will simply call the unions bluff and as a result the unions will fail. The question being, which politican has the balls to do so?
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Aug 11, 2008 11:04:30 GMT
I'm surprised this "special requirements team" hasn't had more mention on here.
It's basically a recreation of the old "relief" staff grade, albeit based on sectors as opposed to divisions or, latterly, lines.
The one difference though is that relief staff were paid travelling time - even nominal walking time - to-and-from their "home" station, and were thus effectively compensated for the lack of advance notice of duties, rest days, locations.
Now all this has to be endured for nothing extra. Is LU taking people for mugs?
No doubt SRT staff will be on "first call" for every football match, Wembley Stadium event, New Year's Eve, Notting Hill Carnival, and yes, strike, too!
No wonder there's been so many adverts in the T/C!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,765
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 11, 2008 12:48:32 GMT
Ultimately strength is in solidarity. Station staff can be replaced at a blink of an eye and as such have little or no strength within the industry. The solidarity comes from the harder to replace train operator grade who have the power to cause longer and more wide spread disruption. The question being how many drivers are prepared to lose pay for a dispute that "doesn't affect them"? Unfortunately I think you answered this question earlier in your post Regardless of their union membership they were not in dispute and as a result if they refused to carry out duties they are licensed to undertake they risk being disciplined. Current legislation gives them no safeguards for refusing to cross the picket line. AIUI a driver is not legally entitled to withdraw their labour in support of a strike by station staff. For a driver who is a member of a different union (e.g. ASLEF, who I believe I have read elsewhere on this forum do not represent station staff) this is doubly so. What I don't know is whether it would be legal for a union to carry out an official strike in support of someone who is not a member of their union. Even if it is legal (which I doubt) I would be surprised if any union would do such a thing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2008 12:59:18 GMT
"having had this argument before" - who with? You certainly haven't had it with me or this forum. See below for my further thoughts on the point. The last few posts cover the rest very well - never assume anyone has 'crossed a picket line' to spite a striker. Making assumptions never got anyone anywhere. Again, I think there's been a fair point put across with regard to the perceived 'undermining' defence. I have no wish to get personal either (let's hope this thread stays on the side of healthy discussion) - I've only quoted you because this is the defence I hear most often when 'unionised' people start talking about the rights & wrongs of strikes. In my experience, people who use the word "scab" are not simply "name calling", they are using it as a tool to bully, intimidate and force their strong union views upon another. In my book, it amounts to the same as forcing strong political or religious views on another - that's why I don't like it and why I requested it's use was considered carefully. There will always be those that disagree with my view, and I accept that - but if you are gonna disagree, convince me that the use of the word 'scab' is not intended to bully, intimidate or force one's strong views on another........ Personally I think the problem is that someone feels strongly enough to protest about whatever the issue is, wants to put it forward through the various motions, votes, ballotes etc. They opt to loose a days pay to show their feelings. someone who (normally!) isnt that fussed either way but would prefer not to loose money crosses a picket line they are indifferent about and nothing more comes of it. To me that is the actions of a scab, I know there are certain aspects like mentioned earlier when other unions are on strike and unfortunatly there are sometimes no other ways around this and in which case the word is a tad on the harsh side. But when it comes down to selfishness, greed or laziness I have little or no sympathy. Does it not occur to you that staff who do not agree with you might feel equally strongly about the issue? It's nothing to do with protesting scabbing - it's just chucking your toys out of the pram because not everyone agrees with your course of action. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2008 14:04:06 GMT
AIUI a driver is not legally entitled to withdraw their labour in support of a strike by station staff. For a driver who is a member of a different union (e.g. ASLEF, who I believe I have read elsewhere on this forum do not represent station staff) this is doubly so. Not true, if the union ballots all members and then calls them out on strike - provided they are employed by the same employer. If a driver was to go on strike in support of Metronet employees that would be counted as secondary action because it's different employers. And as for ASLEF members - simple, join the RMT for the duration of the dispute, it's been done before many times (both ways round depending on which union was on strike). As for the word scab - yes it's taken as an insult but it's a true description of what people are doing if they come to work when they have been called out on strike, or cover the work of colleagues who are striking. Be careful with accusations of bullying too - these can all too easily be used by management against people organising industrial action - many years ago when I was a rep there was an investigation made (which didn't go anywhere, but still........) based on an allegation that I had shouted at someone going in to work while I was on a picket line. Poor dear obviously couldn't cope with someone pointing out what they were doing......... |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Aug 13, 2008 15:49:28 GMT
It is fine to pressure people to go out on strike then - but if LU were to pressure employees to *not* go out on strike then I'm sure people would be up in arms!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,765
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 13, 2008 16:36:40 GMT
AIUI a driver is not legally entitled to withdraw their labour in support of a strike by station staff. For a driver who is a member of a different union (e.g. ASLEF, who I believe I have read elsewhere on this forum do not represent station staff) this is doubly so. Not true, if the union ballots all members and then calls them out on strike - provided they are employed by the same employer. However if the union does not ballot all members, as I get the impression was the case in this local strike(?), then I believe the driver (or indeed other member of staff who was not part of the group balloted) would not be covered? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2008 16:37:54 GMT
It is fine to pressure people to go out on strike then - but if LU were to pressure employees to *not* go out on strike then I'm sure people would be up in arms! LU puts all sorts of pressure on its employees not to strike! Why on earth do you think they don't? A dispute is just that - a dispute where both sides try to win their position - and the employers hold most of the chips, the biggest weight that workers have on their side is weight of numbers standing together - which is why people working during strikes is such an emotive and significant issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Aug 13, 2008 19:12:56 GMT
I mean, if LU were going around branding striking staff as "scabs" or other such terms - there would be an outcry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2008 19:17:14 GMT
I mean, if LU were going around branding striking staff as "scabs" or other such terms - there would be an outcry. What's your point though? The unions have very little besides peer/moral pressure and the understanding of common interests to persuade people to take part in industrial action. Opposing that is the employer - which is where people's living comes from, the threat of financial penalty, disciplinary action and ultimately the sack lie in the employer's court. It's fundamentally an uneven playing field. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2008 11:31:49 GMT
Driver's were not balloted over this action and in fact knew little about it. If the RMT can't get itself organised then there's no call for *some* members to be calling everyone childish names. |
|
|
|
Post by tubedstock on Aug 15, 2008 11:20:04 GMT
Im a front line railway worker and also the RMT Health & Safety Rep for my line, of course without the full facts we cant make a 100% accurate comment on the events, however I can assure you that any admin staff would have the full right to say no to covering station duties even under the popular clease of "a business need" in many contracts, this business need allows the company flexibility within your duties but NOT the right to put you in a different job even for a day!!!!!! The problems with the strike are 1) multiple unions, lack of communication between them, when RMT looked after the VAST MAJORITY of LU workers this of course wuold not be an issue. 2) Too many people are scared to strike due to pressure from the company, believe me as a Rep I can assure you that companies can not do anything if you partake in a legal strike that has been democratically voted to happen, If any companies try negative behavior, report it to your Rep who can help you!!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2008 11:41:46 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2008 21:54:13 GMT
Driver's were not balloted over this action and in fact knew little about it. If the RMT can't get itself organised then there's no call for *some* members to be calling everyone childish names. I didn't see anyone calling names TBH - yes the word scab was used but not directed at anyone in particular. As for drivers not being balloted - it's par for the course with something like this that the initial action should be the workplace concerned - before asking anyone else to take action it's good to show that the person's own workmates are willing to come out for them. Some drivers I believe respected station staff picket lines and good for them. The next step may well be to expand the dispute to ballot drivers and staff on other groups on the line. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2008 22:35:52 GMT
Driver's were not balloted over this action and in fact knew little about it. If the RMT can't get itself organised then there's no call for *some* members to be calling everyone childish names. I didn't see anyone calling names TBH - yes the word scab was used but not directed at anyone in particular. As for drivers not being balloted - it's par for the course with something like this that the initial action should be the workplace concerned - before asking anyone else to take action it's good to show that the person's own workmates are willing to come out for them. Some drivers I believe respected station staff picket lines and good for them. The next step may well be to expand the dispute to ballot drivers and staff on other groups on the line. Well sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either you keep it local only or you consult other staff. You can't say you are keeping it local and then expect a whole host of others who may well have no clue what you are striking about to take action for you. Bear in mind that it's a day's wages which a driver will not get back and there's no overtime for us either. We're not going to not go to work just because station staff are striking unless we know exactly what it's all about and agree to it. And that means consulting us. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2008 8:56:43 GMT
I didn't see anyone calling names TBH - yes the word scab was used but not directed at anyone in particular. As for drivers not being balloted - it's par for the course with something like this that the initial action should be the workplace concerned - before asking anyone else to take action it's good to show that the person's own workmates are willing to come out for them. Some drivers I believe respected station staff picket lines and good for them. The next step may well be to expand the dispute to ballot drivers and staff on other groups on the line. Well sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either you keep it local only or you consult other staff. You can't say you are keeping it local and then expect a whole host of others who may well have no clue what you are striking about to take action for you. Bear in mind that it's a day's wages which a driver will not get back and there's no overtime for us either. We're not going to not go to work just because station staff are striking unless we know exactly what it's all about and agree to it. And that means consulting us. I don't know who this "you" is, I don't work on the Bakerloo line these days, nor am I a union official, (many moons ago I was a rep for the RMT on the Bakerloo though) I was merely expressing the situation as I see it. |
|
